📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:This is good feedback. Thank you.
Very briefly:
> "To put a license on something you have to own it in the first place." ##
The block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have
suggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chain
and more importantly why.
> "A copyright is about protecting revenue" ## Not always. It can also be
about saying you have a right to something and you give up those rights.
There are likely to be many examples where this could be applied, for
example - if you transact with someone and government agencies develop the
means to reveal your transaction, a licence gives protections which might
otherwise not be there in the absence of a licence. The MIT licence does
something similar - the Core developers give up their rights to revenue
from the software. Not wishing to go down rabbit hole, why not just remove
the MIT licence?
> "it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
license to control data owned by someone else." ## It is up to us to
produce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP discussion
process. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to legal
advice, that will be helpful.
> "Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants
to display the block at their web site" ## I would oppose any wording that
attempted to do anything of the sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain
is in the public domain. We have included references to royalty free use of
the data.
> "If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license."
## The original reference client did everything. A block chain licence was
probably not envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which
was intended. Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to
assign rights to miners is just that, a proposal.
I would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network,
but they have no defined rights, anywhere.
Regards,
Ahmed
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the
>> draft BIP:
>>
>
> No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.
>
> Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it in
> the first place.
>
> Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a
> block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get
> copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a
> fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their
> web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes
> it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A
> copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of
> putting a license on intellectual property?
>
> Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a
> license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners
> or users to use any specific license that you come up with?
>
> There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any
> kind of sense:
>
> "In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for
> databases which have been ruled upon by the courts." I have no idea what
> this means or what court cases you are referring to.
>
> "The Bitcoin Core Miners" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own
> intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice
> that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain
> data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there
> are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license.
>
> "[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through
> cryptograph security." I have no idea what this means. It is certainly
> not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once
> again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot
> dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners
> publishing their transaction data.
>
>
> Russ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150902/5298429e/attachment-0001.html>;
Ahmed Zsales [ARCHIVE] /
npub105…lgz5a
2023-06-07 17:39:03
in reply to nevent1q…n4y8
Author Public Key
npub105eg2ny7gs448umtlsn4ns4slc5q3se8wpnzhtr22j8sgdrv2q7stlgz5aPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:03Event JSON
{
"id": "44df36c5524af7373098b2cd8cba73c56ffce50c538b0476c9fd1350168e0b90",
"pubkey": "7d32854c9e442b53f36bfc2759c2b0fe2808c32770662bac6a548f04346c503d",
"created_at": 1686159543,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89a8564b0381eb9568c793c79e358089ddd2d980a31babc3b47efd374cf7b99e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f62968b4a531e8b82fab77d0abceb4f1199e7e57ca9281eefd5e75d555c46263",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01\n📝 Original message:This is good feedback. Thank you.\n\nVery briefly:\n\n\u003e \"To put a license on something you have to own it in the first place.\" ##\nThe block chain is a database. There are laws to protect databases. We have\nsuggested who might be best placed to be assigned rights to the block chain\nand more importantly why.\n\n\u003e \"A copyright is about protecting revenue\" ## Not always. It can also be\nabout saying you have a right to something and you give up those rights.\nThere are likely to be many examples where this could be applied, for\nexample - if you transact with someone and government agencies develop the\nmeans to reveal your transaction, a licence gives protections which might\notherwise not be there in the absence of a licence. The MIT licence does\nsomething similar - the Core developers give up their rights to revenue\nfrom the software. Not wishing to go down rabbit hole, why not just remove\nthe MIT licence?\n\n\u003e \"it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a\nlicense to control data owned by someone else.\" ## It is up to us to\nproduce some guidance and context to assist with the BIP discussion\nprocess. If anyone else has any suggestions on wording or access to legal\nadvice, that will be helpful.\n\n\u003e \"Then the miner can charge a fee for any public block explorer that wants\nto display the block at their web site\" ## I would oppose any wording that\nattempted to do anything of the sort. Bitcoin works because the block chain\nis in the public domain. We have included references to royalty free use of\nthe data.\n\n\u003e \"If there are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license.\"\n## The original reference client did everything. A block chain licence was\nprobably not envisioned. Mining has taken a different path from that which\nwas intended. Nevertheless, one needs to start somewhere. The proposal to\nassign rights to miners is just that, a proposal.\n\nI would just like to labour the point that users pay to use the network,\nbut they have no defined rights, anywhere.\n\nRegards,\n\nAhmed\n\nOn Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e The general points and questions you have raised are covered in the\n\u003e\u003e draft BIP:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e No, the BIP makes some weird statements that don't really make sense.\n\u003e\n\u003e Number one rule here: To put a license on something you have to own it in\n\u003e the first place.\n\u003e\n\u003e Let's say for the sake of argument that Miners own the copyright on a\n\u003e block they find (as pointed out something like does not normally get\n\u003e copyright protection but let's just pretend). Then the miner can charge a\n\u003e fee for any public block explorer that wants to display the block at their\n\u003e web site. They could also try to collect a fee from anyone who distributes\n\u003e it (like Bitcoin users using p2p to distribute the blockchain). A\n\u003e copyright is about protecting revenue. Is there some other purpose of\n\u003e putting a license on intellectual property?\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, it is not up to you, or anyone else, to come up with the form of a\n\u003e license to control data owned by someone else. How can you force miners\n\u003e or users to use any specific license that you come up with?\n\u003e\n\u003e There are a number of other weird statements that really don't make any\n\u003e kind of sense:\n\u003e\n\u003e \"In the USA, for example, these attributes confer legal protections for\n\u003e databases which have been ruled upon by the courts.\" I have no idea what\n\u003e this means or what court cases you are referring to.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"The Bitcoin Core Miners\" is not an identifiable entity and cannot own\n\u003e intellectual property rights. What is the purpose of you putting a notice\n\u003e that some unidentifiable entity has some sort of rights over the blockchain\n\u003e data? You are not that entity and neither are the developers. If there\n\u003e are rights it is up to miners to come up with their license.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"[users] own the rights to their individual transactions through\n\u003e cryptograph security.\" I have no idea what this means. It is certainly\n\u003e not intellectual property rights of anything I am familiar with. Once\n\u003e again, if the users do have intellectual rights then someone else cannot\n\u003e dictate the terms of the license. They could charge a fee for miners\n\u003e publishing their transaction data.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Russ\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150902/5298429e/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "23fe77767035463e4c8cb7409bee91001c23af75137a78588b6a1e79f3582d30cd2c65d198fbacc7ab94aeb1f48e6cc73e16e086de5dbab4bf0dfe689449a960"
}